Child Left Behind Legislation

An Explication of Selected Titles of No Child Left Behind Legislation
In sum, during the period from 2002 through 2015, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became the primary law in the United States concerning the general education of young people in grades K through 12. Some of the provisions of NCLB, especially those involving minorities and migrant children, were contentious because they operated to penalize schools that failed to demonstrate sustained improvement, a requirement that affected many schools with already marginalized learners with limited English proficiency. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the NCLB legislation as it pertains to Migrant Education (Title I), TESOL education (Title III), and Native American education (Title VII). An evaluation and analysis of the research is used to identify similarities and differences that have facilitated distinguishing the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students today. Finally, the paper provides a summary of the research and important findings concerning this NCLB legislation is the conclusion.
Review and Analysis
Migrant Education Program (MEP) (Title I)
In part, Title I of the NCLB provides funds to establish and improve educational programs for children of migratory workers; and provides formula grants to state educational agencies based on per-pupil expenditures. According to one educational department, “The purpose of the MEP is to design and support high-quality and comprehensive educational programs that provide migratory children with the same opportunity to meet the challenging state academic content and student achievement standards that are expected of all children” (Education of migratory children, 2020, para. 2). Beyond the foregoing, the MEP also serves to assure that all migrant students succeed in graduating high school with a diploma or by completing general education equivalency program to help prepare them to become contributing members of American society. Title I of the NCLB allocates federal funds to the several states using a formula that takes into account the estimated number of eligible migratory children aged 3 through 21 years that live within a state during a given year (Education of migratory children, 2020).
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) education (Title III)
Title III of the NCLB, Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students, is designed to provide federal formula grants to state education agencies which then determine local need to make subsequent subgrants to charter schools and school districts which make application to their states for funding (Wright, 2019). The provisions of Title III, almost doubled funding for students with limited English proficiency; however, since the Title III federal funds are distributed on a more widespread basis, the net effect has been to reduce the total funding for individual eligible students with limited English proficiency (Wright, 2019).
It is noteworthy that in contrast to the educational legislation that preceded the NCLB, the provisions of Title III do not distinguish between nonbilingual and bilingual programs but only mandate the students with limited English proficiency are enrolled in some type of "language instruction education programs." For the purpose of Title III, a language instruction education program is defined as type of instructional course:
. . . in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (as cited in Wright, 2019, p. 4).
Based on the foregoing requirements, language instruction education programs for students with limited English proficiency must satisfy two basis requirements as follows: 1) they must teach English; and 2) they must teach academic content as set forth in state-level English language proficiency and academic standards (Wright, 2019). This means that language instruction education programs offered under the provisions of Title III may offer students with limited English proficiency instruction in their native language, but this addition to the curricular offerings is optional (Wright, 2019).
It is important to note, however, that while Title III is specifically silent concerning dual language programs or transitional bilingual educational instruction, its provisions do make allowance for this type of educational programming. In sum, Wright (2019) concludes that, “Title III gives the ultimate authority to each state to determine what programs it will and will not support” (p. 6). A growing number of educators concur that authorizing local determination concerning how best to use Title III federal funds represents a step in the right direction (Wright, 2019).
Native American education (Title VII)
This section of the NCLB has been lauded as being among the most important pieces of legislation designed to improve Native American education in recent years. According to one educator, “Under Title VII, Native education stakeholders work with schools and higher education institutions to ensure that culture-based education is included in school curricula and that it meets the educational needs of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students” (Still, 2017, p. 2). Funding under Title VII of the NCLB has made it possible to develop and administer culturally sensitive supplemental education programs for Native American students that incorporate their local cultures into curricular offerings (Still, 2017). Part A of Title VII includes two sections that have significant implications for Native American learners as follows:
1. Title VII, Part A: Indian Education supports the efforts to meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students to assist them in meeting the same challenging state student academic achievement standards as other students; and,
2. Title VII, Part A, Sub-Part 1: Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies supports local educational agencies in their efforts to reform elementary school and secondary school programs that serve Indian students in order to ensure that such programs - 1) are based on challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards that are used for all students; and 2) are designed to assist Indian students in meeting those standards (Summary and purpose of NCLB title programs, 2020).
While the other title provisions of the NCLB have been the focus of criticisms for various shortcomings and omissions, there is a growing consensus that Title VII is on the right track in developing the types of interventions that are needed to help this demographic segment of American society secure access to equal educational opportunities (Still, 2017).
Evaluation and analysis of the research
In truth, there is a great deal to applaud in the reforms that were introduced by the various permutations of the NCLB during the period from 2002 through 2015. Moreover, it is difficult to argue with the overarching purpose of the NCLB to improve general education in the United States through increased accountability on the part of educators and schools. It is essential to note, though, that unlike their private school counterparts, public schools in the United States are compelled by law to accept all eligible students at any given point in time. This means that schools that are serving low-income communities with large numbers of students with limited English proficiency are at far greater risk of failing to demonstrate consistent, year over year improvements in standardized testing.
While the intended effect of the respective title provisions discussed above was to prioritize the identification of students that were at risk of failing so that additional, individualized instruction could be provided, the net impact has been to concentrate a lion’s share of scare educational resources on struggling students to the exclusion of those that are performing at normal or above-average levels (Payne-Tsoupros, 2010). Not surprisingly, this unintended outcome of the NCLB has operated to the detriment of the very students these titles are intended to help (Love,2016). In this regard, Payne-Tsoupros (2010) emphasizes that, “In low performing schools where a high percentage of students are at risk of failing the test, a focus on the minimum creates disincentives to work with students performing at or above the testing expectations” (p. 472). In other words, these title provisions of the NCLB are setting the bar low for these students to the extent where mediocrity is prized over superior achievement (Payne-Tsoupros, 2010).
Conclusion
The title provisions of No Child Left Behind reviewed above are intended to address the educational needs of an increasingly diverse cohort of young American learners. Given the dramatic demographic changes the United States has experienced in recent years, it is clear that this type of legislation is desperately needed to help marginalized learners achieve the full academic potential, but the challenges that are involved are as great as the need. The research showed that the provisions of Title I (Migrant Education) and Title III (TESOL education differ in their respective approaches to the provision of funding and support for minority children with the latter including provisions for local determination of where these funds are most needed and allowances for educational instruction in students’ native language. Likewise, Title VII (Native American education) included similar provisions for local funding as well as an emphasis on providing the broad range of support services Native American students need to achieve academic parity with their mainstream counterparts.
References
Education of migratory children. (2020). Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title1/part_c/index.shtml#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20the%20Migrant,are%20expected%20of%20all%20children.
Love, P. (2016, July). Every student succeeds unleashes funding flexibility: States and districts can direct block grants to where they are most needed. District Administration, 52(7), 56.
Payne-Tsoupros, C. (2010, October). No Child Left Behind: Disincentives to focus instruction on students above the passing threshold. Journal of Law and Education, 39(4), 471-477.
Still, C. (2017, September 9). Title VII: A path to education equity. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/12/04/13still.h33.html.
Summary and purpose of NCLB title programs. (2020). U.S. Bureau of Indian Education. Retrieved from https://www.bie.edu/topic-page/supplemental-title-programs
Wright, W. E. (2019, April 1). The impact of the No Child Left Behind on ELL education. Colorín Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/no-child-left-behind-and-ells.